|
On August 19 2012 04:08 zalz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2012 03:02 Rixi wrote:On August 19 2012 02:07 one-one-one wrote:On August 18 2012 23:26 TirramirooO wrote:
Man great things that man is doing but in the other hand, he is screwed for life.
If he leaves the embassy he gonna be arrested, i garrantee you :|
Sad day when that happens.
Explain to me why it is sad that European law is allowed to work the way it is supposed to work? Why cant sweden quetion him on ecuadors embassy? Because after questioning, if the cops think he is guilty, he can flip them off and tell them to go fuck themselves, after which the police has no other option than to walk away because he is on foreign territory.
At which point he would be extradited.....
|
On August 19 2012 02:21 RetroAspect wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2012 02:07 one-one-one wrote:On August 18 2012 23:26 TirramirooO wrote:
Man great things that man is doing but in the other hand, he is screwed for life.
If he leaves the embassy he gonna be arrested, i garrantee you :|
Sad day when that happens.
Explain to me why it is sad that European law is allowed to work the way it is supposed to work? Im going to help you understand it in a rather unconventional way: I want you to go stand in front of your IKEA mirror and repeatedly say "Something more is going on here, something more is going on here, ..." Do NOT STOP till you are convinced of that fact.
Is that what you did?
I am not assuming anything. I thought I made that clear. This means that neither am I assuming that Assange is guilty
nor that the whole thing is a conspiracy.
It appears to me that some of you guys just blindly accept the possibility of a conspiracy or something of the like.
The whole thing is absurd. I bet that most of you don't even know the Swedish public opinion about the US in general.
Sweden is very affected by socialism throughout out modern history. This is one of the reasons that the average Swedish dude has a negative opinion about the US.
That's right. If it would be clear that Sweden has to do this and that in order to please the US it would come off as very negative indeed.
As I said before we have a large number of US Army deserters from the Vietnam war. They enjoy complete safety here as it is explicitly illegal to hand them over to the US as they would A: be given a military trial and B: risk the death penalty.
One of the (many)reasons these laws are in place is the view Swedish people have about the US which partly is affected by the US legal system in general and US military law in particular.
So, over here, dealing with the US is something that politicians have to be careful about. If a high profile case like this would end up with Mr Assange being handed over to the US it would be a massive public outcry of epic proportions.
This is not a very likely turn of events though. This was stated just the other day by both a government official and a professor in international law.
In fact, the only legal representatives arguing the contrary is Julian Assange's Swedish lawyers.
At least to my knowledge that is.
When I look at Mr Assange's story and his depiction of Sweden I simply do not find it credible.
This also goes for his supporters in this thread and the way they argue and what they bring up.
It is very clear to a Swedish person that a lot of the accusations are completely baseless because how they know that things actually work in real life over here.
Notice the direction of the discussion in this thread. No one of you has given a good answer to the 2 very simple questions:
If there is a larger chance that Sweden would extradite him to the US than the UK then why didn't the US try to abuse that fact and demanded him arrested and extradited when he first came here in the summer of 2010?
Why the sudden 180 degree turn in Julian Assange's view on Sweden?
Remember that he came here to enjoy the very liberal freedom of speech and source protection.
He himself found that Sweden was almost a heaven on earth and wanted to base Wikileaks here.
As I said I think it is sad that Wikileaks had to go down with him as the Wikileak servers would be very safe here.
After all, http://www.thepiratebay.se is still up and running.
Notice in particular the .se suffix.
|
On August 18 2012 21:00 elhonko wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2012 10:53 Euronyme wrote:On August 18 2012 07:52 elhonko wrote:On August 18 2012 07:05 Euronyme wrote:On August 18 2012 05:45 sunprince wrote:On August 17 2012 23:20 Kreb wrote:
I think it would be pretty funny if he keeps evading extradition for some more time, finally gets caught and extradited some time in 2015, gets brought to Swedish police who hear him out for an hour and then drop charges. :p
Hell, that would be a fitting end to this mess. The original chief prosecutor did drop the charges. However, a week and a half later the local police were ordered to reopen the investigation by authorities at the national level. Seems legit... Authorities at the national level..... also known as the girls' attorney.. -_-' On August 18 2012 00:43 Aterons_toss wrote:On August 18 2012 00:07 Ramong wrote:On August 17 2012 23:22 arbiter_md wrote:
I don't understand people arguing he should go to Sweden and face the trial. Do you really think, he raped two women?? I mean, really? What is Sweden, a country without prostitutes? He had enough money and looks like a normal man.
Would you, being in his position go to Sweden to face the trials?
How about, we discuss the laws in Sweden? How about we find out what exactly that law states, and who proposed/voted such a wonderful law? No, but Sweden is a country nearly without any corruption, so if he really didn't do anything he shouldn't be worried about going there. And if I remember correct he ain't afraid of Sweden, but to get handed over to the US. Please stop being naive, you sound like a politician. Every country in existence is corrupt at its core, its only that country like Sweden have higher quality citizens, politicians that steal more smartly and more money from centuries of employing slave labor and stealing natural resources from half the world. Don't confuse "civilized, rich and liberal" with " not corrupt". I do agree that the current Swedish government will receive to much backlash if they gave him to the US. But if the justice system find him guilty for "rape" than that can't really be blamed on politicians and the judges don't really give a shit... after he sends 5 years in prison, who knows ? can they give him to the US than ? Honestly, wikileaks is active with or without him and people don't really give a shit, the US troops are assholes and the politicians thieves, so what ? The people stupid enough not to have realized this by now likely don't care and the people that care about this don't vote anyway. To be honest i don't believe the FBI really wants to get him just as a "revenge" for proving how incompetent the data protection branch of US is. Sorry what? Slave labour? Did I miss something? We've never employed slave labour, and never stolen natural resources. The boom of the Swedish economy came from staying neutral in WW2 and exporting our resources to both sides, and also through good education leading to competitiveness. In the early 1900s Sweden was piss poor. Our only colony was one of the tiny islands in the caribbean, which was quickly taken over by the French. This issue has nothing to do with corruption, as it doesn't need to be. USA can request him from the interpol (same as Sweden did) and he'll be handed over directly form the UK. That's easy. Now instead your idea is that the evil USA hired two ladies to say that they were raped, bought up the Swedish justice system and independent judges and courts, and even the government itself in order to accomplish the same thing as a request to the UK or interpol. Of course that sounds much more reasonable. The US doesn't have charges, and aren't even looking for him at the moment. What might happen is that they do file charges while he's under arrest in Sweden, which might lead to Sweden handing him over (after Assange's served his sentence here / been released) if the US promises not to enforce the death penalty or torture. Where did you hear five years? Source on that please. We have never had slave labour? Haven't you heard the words "piga" or "dräng"? What in the.... That's a female / male farm workers. They were always paid in some way and were always free to leave whenever. I don't even... Did you actually go to school? I'm seriously curious. Do you know what a slave is? Do you actually think they got paid? Just because they got food doesnt mean they got paid. So if you have nothing to eat no place to live in swedish climate your free to leave? And do you think its coincidence that those words are used in the danish language for boy and girl. Clearly you have no sense of realilty. Rich people have always used poor people for slave labour no matter which country your from. And asking if people went to school when they are questioning your facts is a good way to patronize and make yourself look smarter. But in my eyes insulting other people only makes your look unsecure and immature. Btw the definition on the word slave is: One bound in servitude as the property of a person or household. Took me 2 seconds on google to get that. OHHHH look I didnt need school to get information. And ofcourse I went to school. Didnt you know as a swedish citizen you have to go to school by law? Sorry for going off topic. I think that Assange is doing the right thing when he is'nt trusting the swedish government, just look how it went for the founders of thepiratebay. We here in sweden are just as corrupt as any other country.
Some got paid, others worked for the food and housing. Do you really not see a difference at all between a man who's working for food and shelter and is free to go whenever and a man who's put in chains, living in horrendous conditions, is outside the law and can be treated as cattle? No difference at all? Ok.
Would you consider all unskilled as labour slaves as they can't easily get a new job if they quit? Do you think McDonalds are slave traders? Why do you jump in and argue if you don't even know what the argument is about in the first place?
This is the second time I'm saying that the argument began with a person saying that Sweden is a country that's gotten rich off of slave labour, which is false.
Here's the exact quote: "Every country in existence is corrupt at its core, its only that country like Sweden have higher quality citizens, politicians that steal more smartly and more money from centuries of employing slave labor and stealing natural resources from half the world."
Apparently you think this man is correct, which I don't. I'll just agree to disagree as facts seem to bounce off you, and you rather choose to argue semantics and phrasing.
On August 19 2012 04:18 Mogget wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2012 04:04 Klowney wrote:On August 19 2012 03:31 sekritzzz wrote:On August 19 2012 02:41 ninini wrote:On August 18 2012 20:38 sekritzzz wrote:On August 18 2012 08:50 sekritzzz wrote:On August 18 2012 08:36 Zahir wrote:
I am certainly impressed by how articulate and mostly reasonable the Swedish dudes have been in defending their country. Having considered all the facts, I am ready to believe assange could receive fair treatment if he did in fact go to Sweden. No country is perfect; their previous handing over of people to the us to be tortured is worrying but honestly, there is no nation with a completely blemish free record. I also believe that this being a considerably higher profile case, the Swedish government would be likely to handle it fairly, or else risk pissing off a good number of swedes (If this thread is any indication)
If anything, the ones whore worrying me are the British. The way they are handling this embassy/asylum situation is simply not normal (threatening to go against vienna convention over one alleged sex offender), and the only motivation I can see for that is US pressure. Wonder if anyone from the uk can shine some light on that, given that other criminals have received asylum easily within British shores. The british court system is likely the least influenced by politics (which is probably the main reason assange chose the UK rather than other places despite their close alliance with the US). As several people have said, the British can't and won't extradite him to the USA due to the massive legal complication, but Sweden obviously doesn't considering they've sent several people abroad for torture/etc. So how can Julian Assange trust the Swedish authorities if they've done it in the past? especially considering how badly the USA wants him in comparison to other people. Can you please confirm the source that says that USA badly wants to get a hold on Assange? I just can't believe this. You guys are supposed to be the followers of wikileaks, and yet when your hero is involved you seem to have forgotten what wikileaks is all about, to spread facts, total, uncensored and unbiased facts. From reading all of you guys's ramblings here, I wonder if you actually believe in what the site stands for, or if you just enjoy looking up other ppl's dirt. You have this idea that everybody is corrupt, and yet Mr Assange seems to be the exception. Why? This doesn't seem like truth-seeking to me, more like a personality cult. If you look at the facts, it's obvious that he should be sent to Sweden. Let's say that Assange instead would have been a random australian, and that he was being accused for murder? Then noone would question that UK sent him over. How come this case is different? This case is not as severe, but the law operates the same way. You can't circumvent the law because of some perceived threat. He entered our soil, and is suspected to have broken the law, and you're expecting us to just forget about it, just because it makes the accused sleep better at night? I'm sorry, but that's not how things work here. The EU law is right now forcing UK to make action. I'm sorry but the only grey area in this case is the question of how far the UK is willing to go to apprehend him, but there's no doubt under the current conditions that he will be sent to Sweden and he will stand trial. Assange's only chance is if he manages to escape somehow, but then he will not be able to travel inside EU anymore, or if he's lucky the case will be dropped, and he will be free to go. That's most likely what he's hoping for, but I think it can be a long wait. Are you seriously asking me for a source proving the USA wants him? What exactly do you want? a letter from Obama? Its blatantly obvious assange is hurting them in terms of their diplomacy hence the terrorist name-calling by the vice president of the USA, not to mention the kill threats by several politicians. A simple wikipedia search does the job because thats such a ridiculous question to ask. Yes, you need proof. You can't just throw accusations around like that. Ofc ppl are annoyed by him, but that doesn't mean they're after him. Ppl who don't share your agenda have a really hard time taking thoughts like that seriously. You're assuming that USA is out to get him, and started all this, but there is not a single known fact that points in that direction, just theories that seems to fit your world view. Anyway, obstructing his work and catching him to punish him is widely different. If they take out Assange, it will not be a popular move, and someone else will just take his place. Why would Sweden and USA risk ruining their reputation on a move that wouldn't even be effective? You realize the majority of the world believes the USA/sweden are setting him up right? I'm not sure what "people" you're refering to because coincidently most of the people in this thread who believe he is an actual rapist are swedish. That should be ringing alarm bells to you. So more than 3,5 billion people belives it's a setup? Pedantry, he clearly meant over half of the people who are aware of the issue, which is almost certainly true. Last time i checked, what he is charged with is usually a fine of £700, no more, hardly worth an extradition no? On top of that, last time i was reading this thread, it was the case that they had texts from the two women in question (his partner at the time and the person accusing him) talking about setting him up for rape. Ignoring all that, there is un-usual pressure to extradite rather than do questioning from an embassy for seemingly no reason. I cant link to where i go that information, but it was from this thread or the BBC when this first hit, it shouldn't be hard to find.
He's charged with rape. I honestly have no clue what the penalty is for that in England, but it's up to 4 years of prison in Sweden. Setting up some kind of web cam with the Swedish judges and Assange in the embassy would be a really strange way to treat a suspect, and it's not really how the judicial process work.
If I raped someone, I couldn't very well tell the police to fuck off and that I would be OK with a web cam court, otherwise I'd rather skip it.
|
In May 2010, The Pirate Bay's Swedish Internet service provider lost an appeal against an order to stop providing service to the site. Although the service provider had already complied with an earlier order in August 2009 and The Pirate Bay was thereafter hosted elsewhere, in June 2010 the ISP chose also to block their customers from accessing The Pirate Bay in its new location. One of the judges in the case later commented that the court's order didn't require the ISP to control their customers' access to the site, but the ISP wanted to avoid any risk.
The Pirate Bay - Wikipedia
On 31 May 2006, the website's servers in Stockholm were raided and taken away by Swedish police, leading to three days of downtime.[8] The Pirate Bay has been involved in a number of lawsuits, both as plaintiff and as defendant.
On 17 April 2009, Peter Sunde, Fredrik Neij, Gottfrid Svartholm and Carl Lundström were found guilty of assistance to copyright infringement and sentenced to one year in prison and payment of a fine of 30 million SEK (app. 4,200,000 USD; 2,800,000 GBP; or 3,100,000 EUR), after a trial of nine days.
The Pirate Bay - Wikipedia
You still wanna talk about Pirate Bay and Sweden ?
|
If there is a larger chance that Sweden would extradite him to the US than the UK then why didn't the US try to abuse that fact and demanded him arrested and extradited when he first came here in the summer of 2010? Why the sudden 180 degree turn in Julian Assange's view on Sweden? Remember that he came here to enjoy the very liberal freedom of speech and source protection. He himself found that Sweden was almost a heaven on earth and wanted to base Wikileaks here. As I said I think it is sad that Wikileaks had to go down with him as the Wikileak servers would be very safe here. After all, http://www.thepiratebay.se is still up and running. Notice in particular the .se suffix.
I think asange is a bigger fish than piratebay.
In regards to the questions: Wikileaks big leaks only came late in 2010, so he probably wasn't too worried about being arrested summer 2010. So the US would have not demanded he was extradited because he wasn't a big enough fish.
Also, He probably sees the rape accusation as an attempt to screw him by the US.(assuming he is innocent). Given that this happened in Sweden he probably doesn't see Sweden as a safe country to stay.
(I'm assuming he isn't guilty and not just running away, since if that is the case, you can see why he would be scared of going back).
Whether you think the US and Sweden are in it together or you believe that Sweden has nothing to do with the US stuff, this issue could easily be resolved by having him interviewed in the embassy and then decide whether to charge him or not. At least the case for extradition would be stronger.
Edit: one last point, precisely why he is such a high profile case and a big embarrassment for the US, the US would be a lot of pressure trying to get him. I'm not saying Sweden would bend over as I don't know the system there, but given that he sees it as a unsafe place to stay, he probably wouldn't want to bet possibly his life on it.
|
He's charged with rape. I honestly have no clue what the penalty is for that in England, but it's up to 4 years of prison in Sweden. Setting up some kind of web cam with the Swedish judges and Assange in the embassy would be a really strange way to treat a suspect, and it's not really how the judicial process work.
If I raped someone, I couldn't very well tell the police to fuck off and that I would be OK with a web cam court, otherwise I'd rather skip it.
He has NOT been charged with anything yet...I feel like I need to repeat this on this thread every 5 posts.
1 more time:
He has NOT been charged with anything yet
get you facts right.
Also, sweden has in fact used the cam before when the "acused" was in a different country.
|
Lunasea:
I wasn't saying that people associated with the pirate bay didn't commit any crimes.
All I said was that despite everything that has happened, including the things you brought up, the site is still up and running - in Sweden.
Scheme:
The case for extradition can't be any stronger which the British court system has made a definite fact.
If I remember correctly, Wikileaks was already as big a deal as it ever could be when he came here. After all, Julian Assange even had groupies that would sleep with him 
|
Trust and verify.
You are a fool if you blindly trust either the Swedish legal system or Mr. Assange.
We have had numerous politicians that have stolen money directly or indirectly, I see no reason to put blind faith and trust any politician (and legal judges and other people in court *are* politicly nominated in Sweden, so any corruption among politicians would also affect the legal system). Likewise I see no reason to trust Mr. Assange.
Since Mr. Assange is wanted for questioning, I fail to see a reason why he shouldnt be questioned by the police.
However since he is now on an embassy I also fail to see a reason why he can not be questioned while being on the same embassy.
IMHO, a simply solution.
|
On August 19 2012 05:46 one-one-one wrote:Scheme: The case for extradition can't be any stronger which the British court system has made a definite fact. If I remember correctly, Wikileaks was already as big a deal as it ever could be when he came here. After all, Julian Assange even had groupies that would sleep with him
about wikileaks: what I mean is that in Oct 2010 I think he release the Iraq documents, which he became big news. So the US was forced to try to do something about it.
about the case: I meant in the eye of the people. It would have more support, in my opinion, if he was charged as that would imply the evidence against him is at least strong.
|
On August 18 2012 21:10 one-one-one wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2012 20:56 sunprince wrote:On August 18 2012 20:50 one-one-one wrote:On August 18 2012 20:38 sunprince wrote:On August 18 2012 20:19 KwarK wrote:On August 18 2012 14:55 sunprince wrote:On August 18 2012 14:05 LaNague wrote:
so uhm, how does it go in sweden when a woman tells the police that someone slept with her without a condom.
i mean, you cant exactly prove it in any way, unlike real rape. It goes the way that it does in most Western countries: In any he-said, she-said situation, the man is assumed guilty until prove innocent. Female "victims" of sex crimes are extremely compelling to the average jury, and there are a multitude of cases where men have been convicted of sex crimes on verbal testimony alone. There's a reason why the Innocence Project's overturned convictions are primarily composed of men who were unjustly found guilty of rape. This simply isn't true. 6.5 per cent of all reported rapists are convicted. An estimated that 95 per cent of rapes aren’t even reported. http://www.nus.org.uk/en/campaigns/womens/britain-has-worst-rape-conviction-rate-/The conviction rate in cases of rape is appalling. Most cases get dropped out of lack of evidence before reaching trial when it's just her testimony. Those that make it that far don't win. Why do you assume the conviction rate is appaling? More likely, a lot of unfounded accusations are made and that's why they are dropped due to lack of evidence. If a lot of murder investigations were dropped due to lack of evidence, you wouldn't assume it's because a lot of murderers were getting away free. The fact that your white-knighting instincts automatically assumes the rape accusations are true pretty much exemplify the problematic attitude I'm talking about. On August 18 2012 20:25 one-one-one wrote:On August 18 2012 20:09 sunprince wrote:On August 18 2012 19:49 leveller wrote:On August 18 2012 14:55 sunprince wrote:On August 18 2012 14:05 LaNague wrote:
so uhm, how does it go in sweden when a woman tells the police that someone slept with her without a condom.
i mean, you cant exactly prove it in any way, unlike real rape. It goes the way that it does in most Western countries: In any he-said, she-said situation, the man is assumed guilty until prove innocent. Female "victims" of sex crimes are extremely compelling to the average jury, and there are a multitude of cases where men have been convicted of sex crimes on verbal testimony alone. There's a reason why the Innocence Project's overturned convictions are primarily composed of men who were unjustly found guilty of rape. Yes and there are millions of cases where women got sexually mistreated or raped and who didn't dare to go to the police, or who did and got no case, or who got a case and had the court rule against her because she was dressed provocatively... Citation? This is one of those classic feminist myths which was substantiated only by biased evidence relying on expansive definitions of rape. It's like that "1 in 4 women is raped" factoid thrown around by the media. On August 18 2012 19:49 leveller wrote:
Men who think women make up rape charges all the time and that they are always blowing it out of proportion and who are always lying... would be funny if a guy raped you right and all the justice you got was to be called a slut? It's not common, but there is significant evidence which suggests that they are substantially more common (8%) than false criminal accusations in general (2%). This makes sense considering that false accusers are virtually never punished, thanks to feminist lobbying under the bullshit premise that "it would make women afraid to come forward" (of course, this logic is not applied to any other crimes). As for your "funny example", there's your rape culture right there: male-on-male rape is considered "funny" (while female-on-male rape is heinous). And the term used there would be "gay" rather than "slut". The statistics you link to is US statistics. How does that apply to Sweden? Funny how you Americans just assume that all things probably work in ways very similar to in the US. One of you guys was even talking about the problem with the jury in rape trials. We don't even have fucking juries in our court as our legal system is very different from Common Law. Then the very same page you link to contains the following paragraph: "FBI reports consistently put the number of "unfounded" rape accusations around 8%. The average rate of unfounded reports for Index crimes is 2%.[2] However, "unfounded" is not synonymous with false allegation.[3] Bruce Gross of the Forensic Examiner's says that: This statistic is almost meaningless, as many of the jurisdictions from which the FBI collects data on crime use different definitions of, or criteria for, "unfounded." That is, a report of rape might be classified as unfounded (rather than as forcible rape) if the alleged victim did not try to fight off the suspect, if the alleged perpetrator did not use physical force or a weapon of some sort, if the alleged victim did not sustain any physical injuries, or if the alleged victim and the accused had a prior sexual relationship. Similarly, a report might be deemed unfounded if there is no physical evidence or too many inconsistencies between the accuser's statement and what evidence does exist. As such, although some unfounded cases of rape may be false or fabricated, not all unfounded cases are false.[4]" So you say that 8% of the allegations are false and refer to a source that explicitly states that 8% of allegations are _unfounded_ which it also explains is not the same thing as false. It also cites a forensic examiner saying that the statistics is "almost meaningless". I'm sorry , but LOL. You're quibbling over semantics. A report with "no physical evidence" or" too many inconsistencies between the accuser's statement and what evidence does exist" pretty much means that the accusation was not justified. No, it is obviously not semantics as the text contains a quote by a guy saying that the statistics is meaningless. Also, I only commented on that because it was blatantly obvious that you just went "herp-de-derp gotta find some quick statistics" without even reading what you linked too. It is blatantly semantics because the quote was deliberately cherry-picked out of context by feminist editors on Wikipedia. If you examine the actual source article, you can see that the guy in question considers false allegations to be a very real problem. Still care what one guy thinks about the statistics, or can we use critical thinking skills and logic to understand what they actually mean? On August 18 2012 20:50 one-one-one wrote:
The real question I asked is how in the hell this is related to Sweden? Semantics or not.
The point being made is that rape accusations are held to an unusually low standard of evidence, which is why it's perfect as a political weapon. For example, see how a false accusation (and one proven to be a complete and deliberate falsehood, at that) was so effective at ruining Dominque Strauss-Khanh's career. Tinfoil hats all day... The legal process hasn't proceeded to a state where all the accusations have been made public. The reason for this is that they haven't been able to question Mr Assange due to his strange way of behaving. He is wanted to questioning. For all you know, that might actually be it. There is still a real chance that charges wont be pressed or that an out of court settlement is made.
Denying that the circumstances are extremely suspicious is a deliberately blind way of looking at the situation.
And if you think it's strange that Assange doesn't want to put his life in the hands of a government allied with governments that hate him, then you're either willfully ignorant or incredibly naieve.
|
Scheme:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks#2010
Read yourself, most things happened way before October 2010. In particular, Brian Manning had already been arrested when he came to Sweden and Julian Assange and his connection to Manning was well known by the US.
sunprince: What allies? I didn't know that Sweden had any ...
|
On August 19 2012 05:58 one-one-one wrote:Scheme: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks#2010Read yourself, most things happened way before October 2010. In particular, Brian Manning had already been arrested when he came to Sweden and Julian Assange and his connection to Manning was well known by the US..
You are right, I got the dates wrong.
But like I said, with the accusations of rape, he probably didn't feel Sweden was a safe place to stay. Whether he is guilty or feels like he is being politically persecuted, the interview could have been done prior to him being extradited.
|
On August 18 2012 21:56 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2012 20:38 sunprince wrote:On August 18 2012 20:19 KwarK wrote:On August 18 2012 14:55 sunprince wrote:On August 18 2012 14:05 LaNague wrote:
so uhm, how does it go in sweden when a woman tells the police that someone slept with her without a condom.
i mean, you cant exactly prove it in any way, unlike real rape. It goes the way that it does in most Western countries: In any he-said, she-said situation, the man is assumed guilty until prove innocent. Female "victims" of sex crimes are extremely compelling to the average jury, and there are a multitude of cases where men have been convicted of sex crimes on verbal testimony alone. There's a reason why the Innocence Project's overturned convictions are primarily composed of men who were unjustly found guilty of rape. This simply isn't true. 6.5 per cent of all reported rapists are convicted. An estimated that 95 per cent of rapes aren’t even reported. http://www.nus.org.uk/en/campaigns/womens/britain-has-worst-rape-conviction-rate-/The conviction rate in cases of rape is appalling. Most cases get dropped out of lack of evidence before reaching trial when it's just her testimony. Those that make it that far don't win. Why do you assume the conviction rate is appaling? More likely, a lot of unfounded accusations are made and that's why they are dropped due to lack of evidence. If a lot of murder investigations were dropped due to lack of evidence, you wouldn't assume it's because a lot of murderers were getting away free. The fact that your white-knighting instincts automatically assumes the rape accusations are true pretty much exemplify the problematic attitude I'm talking about. The fact that you condescendingly dismiss my opinion on rape culture as white knighting says far more about your attitude than mine. The fact of the matter is that rape is an incredibly prevalent thing in our culture and, when you ask men anonymously without using the word rape, 6% of college aged men admit to rape. This isn't exaggerated, this isn't "spurious allegations", these are men willingly admitting to rape because they don't think it's a big deal. Show nested quote +researchers David Lesak and Paul M. Miller asked 1882 college students the following questions:
1) Have you ever attempted unsuccessfully to have intercourse with an adult by force or threat of force?
2) Have you ever had sexual intercourse with someone who did not want you to because they were too intoxicated to resist?
3) Have you ever had intercourse with someone by force or threat of force?
4) Have you ever had oral intercourse with someone by force or threat of force?
Those questions seem pretty clearly rape, there's no misdirection or misleading questions here, they just describe rape without the word rape. 120 respondents, or 6% of the sample (which, by the way, was ethnically diverse, and included older students, up to the age of 71), answered yes to at least one of the questions. 76 of those men had committed more than one rape or attempted rape — these recidivists averaged 5.8 offenses. That is, writes Millar, "just 4% of the men surveyed committed over 400 attempted or completed rapes." 1882 college students asked, over 400 rapes between them. That is an awful, awful lot of rape going on and these numbers are based upon men voluntarily answering unambiguous questions. So don't give me that bullshit about me white knighting or wanting to buying into bullshit peddled by women or the rest of your arrogant, condescending nonsense. You have no fucking clue what you're talking about.
The so-called "rape culture" of Western society is a myth. The rape of a woman by a man is seen as one of the appalling crimes by society. To suggest that society condones, or even encourages, the rape of a woman is completely blind to reality. When Strauss Kahn, a privileged white male politician, is completely booted out of politics on merely an allegation of rape which was withdrawn due to a lack of evidence, its hard to take seriously that society protects rapists. Any criminologist can tell you that rape predates society by thousands of years, and occurs not because of patriarchal conditioning, but because of a breakdown of social controls.
Before it was misappropriated by feminists, the term "rape culture" was used originally to describe prison populations. If you look at how rape happens in prison, you get an idea of what a rape culture really looks like. Everybody knows about the rape that goes on in there and they not only accept it, but cheer it on. Comedians joke about it nonstop; it’s even supposed to be part of the punishment. How many times have you heard somebody say, “You’re going to get raped in prison, lol!” But it’s ok though, because they totally deserve it, right? That guy who’s doing time for stealing cars totally deserves getting fucked in the ass and having society laugh at him for it. There's your rape culture. While cultures condoning rape of women were prevalent in many societies of the past and still exists in backwards places today, it's pretty ridiculous to say that we have a rape culture in Western society.
The fact that rape (along with other violent crimes) is still a problem in our society, does not mean that it is condoned. So while I wouldn't disagree that there is still an awful amount of raping going on (hell, any amount of raping should be eradicated), this doesn't imply that we have a culture of rape (at least not in general society outside of prisons). As for your study, it's an ideological study for an ideological journal, so I'd hesistate to use that for any conclusions. A more legitimate government source would be the Center for Disease Control's National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survery, which tells a different story. The actual number of completed rapes show that only between 0.5% and 1.2% (the number varies due to not all alcohol/drug related incidents being rape) of American women were raped in 2010, which is still a problem, but a far cry from the 1 in 4 myths that ideologues propagate.
|
On December 07 2010 19:50 Banksy wrote:
Assange has been hiding out at an undisclosed location in Britain since WikiLeaks began publishing hundreds of U.S. diplomatic cables online last month.
Wasn't an undisclosed location. He was hiding out in the Ecuador Embassy. He was trying to get diplomatic immunity in Ecuador which they granted him. Embassy are considered land belonging to that particular country so while inside was not able to be arrested. As soon as he left the embassy however to make his way out the country to go to Ecuador he was on British soil and was arrested.
I wouldn't mind but he went to all this effort to get diplomatic immunity in Ecuador despite the British government quite openly saying he wasn't going to be allowed passage out of the country on British soil.
|
If you guys think this is a conspiracy then you truly are retarded. It is common fact that Assange is à total wierdo and deuchebag to woman and if you would spend 10min reading the investigation report you would realise that he is guilty
|
On August 19 2012 05:46 one-one-one wrote:Lunasea: I wasn't saying that people associated with the pirate bay didn't commit any crimes. All I said was that despite everything that has happened, including the things you brought up, the site is still up and running - in Sweden. Scheme: The case for extradition can't be any stronger which the British court system has made a definite fact. If I remember correctly, Wikileaks was already as big a deal as it ever could be when he came here. After all, Julian Assange even had groupies that would sleep with him
I wasn't linking this because of the crimes. I was linking to make you realize that they were persecuted a lot in Sweden too.
And Scheme explained that Assange is even a "bigger fish". So persecution and extradition is clearly on the table.
|
On August 19 2012 05:58 one-one-one wrote:Scheme: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks#2010Read yourself, most things happened way before October 2010. In particular, Brian Manning had already been arrested when he came to Sweden and Julian Assange and his connection to Manning was well known by the US. sunprince: What allies? I didn't know that Sweden had any ...
Are you kidding? No allies?
Firstly, Sweden is in the EU.
Secondly, even if we're not in NATO we are closely tied to a majority of the nations in NATO, making us more or less allied with every nation within NATO. And you do know that we have soldiers in Afghanistan... right?
|
On August 19 2012 06:37 Almtom wrote:
If you guys think this is a conspiracy then you truly are retarded. It is common fact that Assange is à total wierdo and deuchebag to woman and if you would spend 10min reading the investigation report you would realise that he is guilty
Good thing you're not the law.
|
On August 19 2012 06:37 Almtom wrote:
If you guys think this is a conspiracy then you truly are retarded. It is common fact that Assange is à total wierdo and deuchebag to woman and if you would spend 10min reading the investigation report you would realise that he is guilty
Investigation done by a country that receives a lot of pressure from the US so that they agree on the extradition of that particular person.
Yeah, clearly there is no biased and this investigation report seems legit.
|
On August 19 2012 05:49 Kalles wrote:
Trust and verify.
You are a fool if you blindly trust either the Swedish legal system or Mr. Assange.
We have had numerous politicians that have stolen money directly or indirectly, I see no reason to put blind faith and trust any politician (and legal judges and other people in court *are* politicly nominated in Sweden, so any corruption among politicians would also affect the legal system). Likewise I see no reason to trust Mr. Assange.
Since Mr. Assange is wanted for questioning, I fail to see a reason why he shouldnt be questioned by the police.
However since he is now on an embassy I also fail to see a reason why he can not be questioned while being on the same embassy.
IMHO, a simply solution.
I completely agree with this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
